Artificial intelligence for COVID-19: saviour or saboteur?
Open accessAbstract
As 2020 draws to a close, one thing is certain: the COVID-19 pandemic has had an irreversible effect on the world. The effect on digital health is no exception. The pandemic has forced health-care providers and governments around the world to accelerate the development of artificial intelligence (AI) tools and scale up their use in medicine, even before they are proven to work. An untested AI algorithm has even received emergency authorisation from the US Food and Drug Administration. But will the use of untested AI systems help or hinder patients with COVID-19?
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A 2021 editorial highlighted the promise of CURIAL-1.0 to support patients with COVID-19, discussing the need for further evaluation to show benefits over standard of care in a real-world clinical setting.
“A 2021 editorial highlighted the promise of CURIAL-1.0 to support patients with COVID-19, discussing the need for further evaluation to show benefits over standard of care in a real-world clinical setting.27”
From Real-world evaluation of rapid and laboratory-free COVID-19 triage for emergency care: external validation and pilot deployment of artificial intelligence driven screening (2022) · cites this paper as [27]
The editorial discusses CURIAL AI’s potential to help patients with COVID-19 and says clinical trials are needed to establish how it can support patients in the real world (section “Artificial intelligence for COVID-19: saviour or saboteur?”, page unavailable). Our copy does not call the tool “CURIAL-1.0” or explicitly say evaluation must show benefits over standard of care. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Soltan, A. A. S., Yang, J., Pattanshetty, R., Novak, A., Yang, Y., Rohanian, O., Beer, S., Soltan, M. A., Thickett, D. R., Fairhead, R., et al. (2022) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(21)00272-7 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
- Authors
- Health, T. L. D.
- Corresponding author
- The Lancet Digital Health
- Venue
- The Lancet Digital Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e1
- ISSN
- 2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7832628
- OpenAlex
- W4251216503
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Lancet Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › COVID-19 diagnosis using AI
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Healthcare during COVID-19 Pandemic
- Keywords
- artificial intelligence, COVID-19 pandemic, digital health, artificial intelligence in healthcare, AI regulation, health technology adoption
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, Artificial Intelligence, Humans
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
